SARAH LUND vs THE GRUPE COMPANY, et al.

2024CUBC025022: SARAH LUND vs THE GRUPE COMPANY, et al. 05/21/2026 in Department 20 Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Motion: Defendant Equity Residential Management, LLC’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Tentative: Defendant’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is DENIED, without prejudice.

Defendant filed its answer to the Complaint on July 31, 2024. Its first motions to compel were not filed until February 4, 2026. The three motions were granted on March 10, 2026, and Plaintiff was ordered to provide verified, code-compliant answers and documents, responsive to the discovery without objection, on or before March 20, 2026. She has not done so.

On March 24, 2026, Plaintiff’s attorneys’ motions to be relieved as counsel were granted. On May 12, 2026, the Court granted a second continuance of the trial to provide Plaintiff time to retain new counsel. The first continuance was granted to allow Defendant to obtain the subject discovery in advance of trial.

“Disobedience of a court order constitutes an abuse of discovery for which the court may dismiss the action. [Citation]. (Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 928-929.) “’Discovery sanctions “should be appropriate to the dereliction and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.’ [Citations.] . . . the sanctions the court may impose are such as are suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks, but the court may not impose sanctions which are designed not to accomplish the objects of discovery but to impose punishment. [Citations.]”’ (Valbona v. Springer (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1545.)

“The discovery statutes thus ‘evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination.’ [Citation]. Although in extreme cases a court has the authority to order a terminating sanction as a first measure [citations], a terminating sanction should generally not be imposed until the court has attempted less severe alternatives and found them to be unsuccessful and/or the record clearly shows lesser sanctions would be ineffective.” (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.) Under the circumstances of this case, it may be that lesser sanctions would be ineffective since monetary sanctions will not provide the information to which Defendant is entitled and evidence and issue sanctions may be the equivalent of a dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims.

In light of the former counsel’s withdrawal from representation, the Court is not convinced at this point that Plaintiff is refusing to obey the Court’s orders of March 10, 2026. Defendant has not provided evidence of any communications with Plaintiff in this regard. Nevertheless, Plaintiff is admonished that the continued failure to comply with this Court’s orders of March 10, 2026, may result in further sanctions up to, and including, the striking of the Complaint and dismissal of this action.

2024CUBC025022: SARAH LUND vs THE GRUPE COMPANY, et al.

Defendant’s request for issue, evidence, or monetary sanctions is denied, without prejudice, for the failure to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040 and for the failure to specify what issues or evidence sanctions it seeks and how such sanctions are related to the issues/discovery in this action.

Defendant shall provide notice.

2